Like I said, domestic oil production is at its highest point in recent years. So we’ve actually really concentrated on that.

Democrats patting themselves on the back for oil production increases?

Ba. Lo. Ney.

With all due respect.

Rep. Wasserman Schultz represents the party that always tells you that there’s no point in looking for new oil fields because it takes 10 years to develop them. Remember?
World-class oil fields can take that long to develop, but it’s a stupid argument against doing them. For example, fields like BP’s Thunder Horse and Atlantis, and BHP Billiton’s Shenzi together account for 100% of the 2009-10 growth in Gulf of Mexico production. All these fields were discovered 10 years ago or more, and the owners had the foresight to stick with them even through times when the oil price was as low as $10 per barrel (1999). Back then Barack Obama was still an unknown Illinois state senator, and Wasserman Schultz was in the Florida state house.

Here’s what was predicted for BP’s big fields back in 2008, before you-know-who was elected:

When running at full tilt, Thunder Horse alone will increase overall U.S. oil and gas production by 3.6 percent. Add BP’s Atlantis platform that started up last year, and the boost grows to 6.4 percent.

Onshore, fields usually don’t take so long to develop. Just in the past few years, there has been an oil drilling boom in places like North Dakota and South Texas, and those booms are partly responsible for the production uptick. But the Feds, and certainly not the Dems, deserve zero credit for the Bakken Shale and the Eagleford Shale booms. Those plays were driven by technology and entrepreneurial, independent oil men.

No, the answer to our energy woes lies in our private sector, not in Washington, and certainly not in the Democratic Party. And for them to try to take credit for this uptick is laughably pathetic.
While we’re at it, here’s Rep. Wasserman Schultz’s voting record on energy: